New system an additional headache for court<\/p>\n
The country's highest judicial body, the Supreme Court, has
\nbeen given more power with the March 31 transfer to the court of
\nadministrative and financial powers formerly belonging to the
\nMinistry of Justice and Human Rights, along with the
\nimplementation of Law No. 4\/2004 on judicial power and Law No.
\n5\/2004 on the Supreme Court. These changes are expected to result
\nin an independent judiciary that will eventually repair the great
\ndamage that has been done to its image. The Jakarta Post
\ncontributor T. Sima Gunawan spoke with lawyer Luhut Pangaribuan,
\nchairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights
\nAssociation, about these changes. The following is an excerpt of
\nthe interview.<\/p>\n
Question: How do you see this new system?<\/p>\n
Answer: It will give the Supreme Court a hard time. The
\nSupreme Court so far has not been able to solve its own problems,
\nso these new powers will put it into more trouble. Take the
\nbacklog of some 20,000 cases at the Supreme Court, for example.
\nDon't just look at the number, but think about the consequences.<\/p>\n
What are the consequences?<\/p>\n
Due to the backlog, people have to wait a long time before the
\nSupreme Court hears their case. And this has resulted in
\ncorruption. People have to pay in order to get information about
\ntheir case; for example, information about whether their case has
\nbeen registered or whether the Supreme Court has appointed
\njustices to hear the case.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court fails to provide good public services.
\nPeople do not know how long they will have to wait until the
\njustices reach a decision in their case. There is no standard
\ntime. It may take years, maybe more than five years.<\/p>\n
Are you saying there is no legal certainty?<\/p>\n
Yes. There is a disparity. For example, one case can be
\nimmediately executed, but there are others that cannot.<\/p>\n
That is only about administrative matters. You have not
\ndiscussed the court's decisions themselves.<\/p>\n
This is another concern. Judges often have different
\ninterpretations of the same laws. The Supreme Court of the
\nRepublic of Indonesia should have the same interpretation of laws
\nso that there are not different verdicts for similar cases, for
\nexample, in corruption cases or other violations of the law, even
\nthough dissenting opinions are allowed.<\/p>\n
How is it possible for justices to have different
\ninterpretations of the same laws?<\/p>\n
There are two things. First, there is no intellectual process
\nor group discussion at the Supreme Court, so they cannot have the
\nsame vision about the development of the law.<\/p>\n
Second, there is the intervention of money. The new system is
\nexpected to make the Supreme Court independent from government
\nintervention, but not from the intervention of money.<\/p>\n
But the idea of a single judicial system was introduced by the
\nCentral Java branch of the Indonesian Judges Association in 1966,
\nand many parties have voiced support for the idea.<\/p>\n
The idea has been implemented without preparation; this is a
\nreactive move. Look at what is happening now. We don't rely on
\nany system (in the Supreme Court), but on the people. There is,
\nin fact, no system (of monitoring) the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Corruption in the Supreme Court is not new. Is there any way
\nto deal with this?<\/p>\n
Anyone can appeal to the Supreme Court, regardless of the
\nnature of their case. The Supreme Court should become selective
\nin accepting cases. They should deal with laws only, not facts.
\nThey should only decide cases that will later become part of
\njurisprudence.<\/p>\n
Could you give an example?<\/p>\n
In the 1950s, the Supreme Court issued a decision saying that
\nboth Batak men and women have an equal right to inheritance.
\nAccording to Batak customary law, only the men had the right to
\ninheritance. The Supreme Court's decision became jurisprudence
\nand was used in similar cases, not only among the Bataks but also
\nother ethnic groups.<\/p>\n
If the Supreme Court accepts any and all cases, even if they
\nincrease the number of justices (from 51) to 60, as mentioned in
\nthe new law, or even up to 100, this will not solve the problem.<\/p>\n
The United States only has nine Supreme Court justices. Sweden
\nalso has a small number of justices, but they are doing well
\nbecause they only deal with laws.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, what can be done to eliminate corruption in
\nthe Supreme Court?<\/p>\n
I wish they (Supreme Court justices) were angels --
\nimmaculate, a great deal of integrity, and the intention to do
\ngood things. Everything should start from themselves.<\/p>\n
What about the role of lawyers, who often offer bribes to the
\njustices?<\/p>\n
It is true, many lawyers bribe judges. But it depends on the
\njudges to accept or refuse the bribes. A new law on the
\nestablishment of a judicial commission is being drafted. The
\ncommission will select candidates for the Supreme Court and then
\nsupervise them, but currently no body controls the court. So
\neverything depends on the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court performed its role better in the 1950s and
\n1960s. So, how did it get to this?<\/p>\n
We used to have a better government. The current situation is
\nalso the result of the political process, which produced rulers
\nbut not leaders.<\/p>\n
Things will improve if we get political leaders like Mahatma
\nGandhi, Lee Kuan Yew or Mahathir Mohamad. They were clean,
\ncapable and were supported by the people.<\/p>\n
It is not easy to find a person of such character, but I
\nbelieve there are people like that out there.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, none of our presidential candidates are like
\nthat.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/new-system-an-additional-headache-for-court-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}